We Told You There Was No Heaven, and They Burnt Our Books Anyway
How
a bunch of ancient Indian materialists got cancelled by the priestly class,
quietly became the operating system for every government and stock market
since, and never even got a thank-you note
Let me
tell you about the most successful failed philosophy in human history.
The
Charvaka school—also known as Lokayata, which roughly translates to "what
the cool, cynical urbanites actually believe when they're not at
temple"—had the audacity around 600 BCE to look around at the elaborate
Vedic sacrifice industry and ask a very simple question: What if all this
invisible afterlife accounting is just a really profitable fiction?
You
can imagine how that went over.
The
priests, who had built an entire economy on the promise that your dead
ancestors needed ghee and gold to be comfortable in the next world, were not
amused. The kings, whose divine right to rule depended on those same priests
blessing them, were even less amused. And the charlatans—well, the Charvakas
had some names for them that I cannot repeat in a family-friendly blog post,
except to note that "buffoons, knaves, and demons" was apparently
their opening salutation.
Here's the irony: the Charvakas were absolutely,
devastatingly right about almost everything that matters in the material world.
And for being right, they had their books systematically destroyed, their
arguments preserved only as straw men in their enemies' refutations, and their
name reduced to a synonym for "crude hedonist" in every Indian
philosophy textbook written since.
But they never really died. They just went underground.
Became the ghost in the machine. The secret sauce.
Because here's the thing about realism: you don't need to
believe in it for it to be true. Gravity doesn't care about your opinions, and
neither does the fact that nations pursue their material interests regardless
of their official ideologies. Every time a central bank adjusts interest rates
to manage inflation, it's practicing Charvaka economics. Every time a general
calculates troop deployments without consulting an astrologer, it's practicing
Charvaka statecraft. Every time you check your bank balance before deciding
whether to donate to a temple, you're being a Charvaka.
And the really delicious part? The priests knew this. They
always knew. That massive donation the merchant prince gave to fund the
elaborate fire sacrifice? He made that money by running a brutally rational,
evidence-based trading operation that never once relied on divine intervention.
And the priest who accepted the donation? He used geometric calculations from
the Shulba Sutras—empirical, materialist mathematics—to build the altar.
Everyone was a Charvaka where it counted. Everyone just
agreed not to talk about it in public.
That's not hypocrisy. That's structural realism disguised as
social contract. And it's been running the world ever since.
Now, let me back up and explain who these infuriatingly
sensible people actually were, because your average introduction to Indian
philosophy does them a profound disservice.
The standard textbook treatment of Charvaka goes something
like this: "A crude materialist school that advocated hedonism and
rejected all religious authority. They believed in nothing but sensory
pleasure. They were basically the ancient equivalent of that guy in your
college dorm who smoked too much and said 'nothing really matters, man.'"
This is roughly as accurate as describing Einstein as
"that guy with the messy hair who was bad at math."
The real Charvaka—whether we're talking about the legendary
founder Brihaspati (yes, the same Brihaspati who is supposedly the guru of the
gods, which is already a delicious irony) or the historical systematizers whose
names we've lost—was a sophisticated philosophical tradition with rigorous
epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical positions. Let me walk you through
them.
Epistemology: Show Me, Don't Tell Me
The Charvakas had a brutally simple theory of knowledge:
perception is the only valid source of truth. Inference? Unreliable. Testimony?
Please. The Vedas? Don't make me laugh.
This is called Pratyaksha—direct perception. If
you can't see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or hear it, you don't
actually know it. You might believe it. You
might hope it. You might really really want it
to be true because your entire livelihood depends on people accepting it. But
that's not knowledge.
The orthodox schools were horrified. What about inference?
If you see smoke, don't you infer fire? The Charvakas had a response: yes, but
that inference only works because you've perceived the
connection between smoke and fire in the past. And even then, it's not
certain—there could be smoke without fire (dry ice, special effects, a very
convincing hallucination). The only way to know there's fire
is to go and look.
This is radical skepticism, and it anticipates David Hume's
problem of induction by about two thousand years. The British empiricists
thought they were being terribly clever. The Charvakas had already been there,
made the argument, and been dismissed by priests who told them to stop being
difficult.
The political implications of this epistemology are
enormous. If perception is the only truth, then the entire edifice of divine
right, karmic debt, ancestral offerings, and ritual purity collapses. What
remains? Only what you can see, measure, and verify. Grain counts. Treasury
balances. Border fortifications. Armies.
This is why Kautilya, the author of the Arthashastra,
included Charvaka (under the category of Anvikshiki, or logical
philosophy) as an essential science for any prince to study. Not because the
prince should believe it—but because the prince should understand it.
Because the prince who governs as if only material reality matters will govern
effectively. The prince who governs as if invisible forces will rescue him will
be conquered by the one who doesn't.
Metaphysics: You Are What You Eat (And When You Die,
That's It)
The Charvaka metaphysical position is simple, elegant, and
deeply offensive to anyone with a spiritual bone in their body: the universe is
made of four material elements—earth, water, fire, and air. Consciousness is
not a separate substance. It emerges when these elements combine in a specific
way, like intoxication emerges from fermented ingredients.
This is the famous "wine metaphor," and it's
genuinely brilliant.
The orthodox opponents would ask: "If everything is
just dead matter, where does consciousness come from? How do you get life from
non-life?" The Charvakas would reply: "How do you get intoxication
from flour, water, and yeast? None of those ingredients individually can make
you drunk. But combine them properly, let them ferment, and bam—you're
seeing double. Consciousness is the same thing. It's an emergent property of
organized matter."
Dr. Daniel Dennett, the contemporary philosopher of mind,
has spent his entire career making essentially the same argument, albeit with
more neuroscience and less wine. The Charvakas were there first. They just
didn't have fMRI machines.
The corollary, of course, is that when the body dies,
consciousness ends. There is no soul that survives. There is no rebirth. There
is no heaven or hell. There is no karmic accountant keeping a cosmic ledger of
your good and bad deeds.
This is the doctrine of Ucchedavada—annihilationism.
And it is the single most "radioactive" idea in the entire history of
Indian philosophy.
Because if there's no afterlife, then the entire economic
model of the priestly class collapses. Why perform expensive funeral rituals if
the dead person is simply gone? Why offer food to ancestors who no
longer exist? Why donate cattle to Brahmins to earn merit for a next life that
will never come?
The Charvakas pointed this out with what can only be
described as theological glee. They weren't just making an
argument; they were running a hostile takeover of the meaning-making industry.
And the meaning-makers responded the way entrenched interests always respond
when their business model is threatened: they suppressed the competition.
Ethics: The Hedonism That Wasn't Actually Hedonistic
This is where the Charvakas get their bad reputation, and
where the bad reputation is partly deserved but mostly a
caricature.
The standard view: Charvaka ethics said "eat, drink,
and be merry, for tomorrow we die." The famous couplet attributed to
them: "Live happily as long as you live, borrow money and drink
ghee; once the body is burnt to ashes, there is no return."
If this were the whole philosophy, the Charvakas really
would be just ancient frat boys. But it's not the whole philosophy. It's the
version preserved by their enemies, who had every incentive to make them look
as foolish and irresponsible as possible.
The more sophisticated Charvaka position—attributed to the
"refined" (Sushikshita) branch of the school—is actually a
form of rational, prudential hedonism. It goes like this:
Pleasure is good. Pain is bad. That's not a moral claim;
it's a biological fact. Every sentient creature seeks pleasure and avoids pain.
The question is not whether to seek pleasure, but how.
And the "how" requires prudence. If you
overindulge today and get sick tomorrow, you haven't maximized pleasure; you've
been an idiot. If you steal from your neighbor and get beaten by the mob,
you've made a tactical error. If you alienate everyone in your community
through selfish behavior, you'll end up alone and miserable—which is
objectively worse than having friends and allies.
Therefore, the ethical life is the life of rational
self-interest properly understood. You cooperate because cooperation produces
better outcomes than defection. You follow rules because a society with rules
is more pleasant to live in than a society without them. You don't murder
because—setting aside any moral qualms—murderers get caught, punished, or
killed in retaliation, and that's a bad deal for you.
This is basically game theory before there was game theory.
It's Thomas Hobbes's social contract without the need for a leviathan (though
the Charvakas would accept the leviathan as a useful enforcement mechanism).
It's Adam Smith's "enlightened self-interest" without the invisible
hand—because the Charvakas didn't believe in invisible anything.
The orthodox critics were not impressed. "But what
about real morality?" they asked. "What about doing
good for its own sake? What about compassion? What about duty?"
The Charvakas had a response: "What about it?
Compassion makes you feel good and creates social bonds that benefit you. Duty
keeps society functioning so you can keep enjoying yourself. If you want to
call that 'morality,' fine. But don't pretend it comes from anywhere other than
material, observable human needs."
This is not hedonism as indulgence. It's hedonism as systems
engineering.
The Critique of Religion: Where the Fun Really Begins
If you've read this far, you've gathered that the Charvakas
were not exactly respectful of religious authority. But I haven't yet conveyed
the tone.
The Charvakas didn't just disagree with the Vedas. They
mocked them. They satirized them. They called their authors buffoons,
knaves, and demons—and they meant it as a careful, considered philosophical
assessment.
Their arguments against Vedic religion are a masterpiece of
takedown culture, ancient India edition:
The economic argument: The priests invented
complex rituals because that's how they make a living. If everyone realized
that animal sacrifices don't actually control the weather, the priests would
have to get real jobs. They have a vested interest in keeping you afraid.
The logical argument: If a sacrificed animal
goes to heaven, why doesn't the sacrificer offer his own father? The implied
answer is obvious: because you know your father wouldn't actually go anywhere,
and you'd just have a dead parent and a big mess.
The empirical argument: No one has ever seen the
results of a ritual produce the promised effect. You perform a sacrifice for
rain; it rains eventually, because it always does. You perform a sacrifice for
health; you recover eventually, because bodies heal. There's no evidence of
causation, only correlation exploited by clever priests.
The textual argument: The Vedas are full of
contradictions, nonsense, and self-serving claims. And even if they weren't,
they're just the words of human beings who lived a long time ago. Why should
their authority override your own eyes and ears?
This last argument is the killer. Because once you accept
that human testimony has no special authority, the entire edifice of scriptural
religion collapses. Not just the Vedas—any scripture. The Bible,
the Quran, the Tripitaka, the Guru Granth Sahib. All of them are just people
talking. Some of them are wise; some of them are not; all of them are fallible.
The Charvakas had the intellectual courage to follow this
logic to its conclusion. Most people, then and now, prefer to stop a few steps
short. The Charvakas found this hilarious and tragic in equal measure.
Political Realism: The Secret Love Child of Charvaka and
Kautilya
Now we get to the really interesting part—the connection
that most historians of philosophy ignore and most political scientists have
never heard of.
Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), the author of the
Arthashastra, was the prime minister of the Mauryan Empire and the Machiavelli
of ancient India—except Machiavelli was a rank amateur compared to Kautilya.
The Arthashastra is a manual for statecraft that covers everything from
espionage to economics, from military strategy to tax collection, from how to
assassinate a rival to how to manage a supply chain.
And it is, in its core assumptions, thoroughly Charvaka.
Let me be clear: Kautilya was not a card-carrying Charvaka.
He references the Vedas, acknowledges the caste system, and maintains the
outward forms of orthodox Hinduism. But when you actually read the
Arthashastra—especially the sections on how to actually govern, as
opposed to the sections on how to appear to be governing—you
find a worldview that has stripped away every supernatural assumption and
replaced it with cold, hard calculation.
The king's right to rule? Not divine. It comes from his
ability to wield the Danda—the rod of punishment—effectively.
The purpose of the state? Not to uphold cosmic order. It's
to secure material prosperity (Artha).
The measure of a good king? Not his piety. It's the security
and prosperity of his subjects, the fullness of his treasury, and the loyalty
of his army.
International relations? Neighboring states are natural
enemies. The Mandala theory—which arranges states in concentric circles of
alliance and enmity based purely on geography—makes no reference to shared
religion, culture, or morality. It's pure structural realism, five hundred
years before Thucydides wrote the Melian Dialogue.
And crucially, the king's attitude toward religion? Exploit
it. Use the priests to keep the masses docile. Stage rituals for their
psychological benefit. But never, ever mistake the mask for the face.
This is the Kautilyan synthesis: the ruler privately
operates on Charvaka assumptions while publicly maintaining the Vedic user
interface. The operating system is materialist realism; the display screen is
religious tradition.
And here's the irony that the Charvakas themselves would
have appreciated: this synthesis has proven incredibly stable. It's been
running Indian civilization for over two thousand years. It's still running it
today.
Think about the Indian politician who builds a high-tech
startup ecosystem while simultaneously sponsoring elaborate temple rituals.
Think about the Indian business tycoon who runs his company on ruthlessly
rational KPIs and then donates millions to his family guru. Think about the
Indian soldier who relies on GPS and drone technology but still visits the
temple before deployment.
This is not hypocrisy. This is the Kautilyan synthesis
operationalized. It's everyone agreeing that the Charvaka grid runs the real
machinery, and everyone also agreeing that they'll pretend it doesn't, because
pretending makes social cooperation easier.
The Merchant Class: The Practical Charvakas
If the priests were the guardians of the Vedic user
interface, the merchants were the unwitting carriers of the Charvaka operating
system.
Consider the Shreni—the ancient Indian merchant
guild. These organizations managed trade routes, maintained warehouses,
extended credit, resolved disputes, and accumulated capital. Their
decision-making was based entirely on observable data: prices, inventory
levels, interest rates, risk assessments. They had no room for karma in their
ledgers. A shipment that arrived was profitable; a shipment that sank was a
loss. The gods were not consulted on shipping logistics.
Yet the same merchants who ran their businesses on purely
rational, materialist principles were the ones donating massive sums to temples
and Brahmins. Why?
The Charvaka answer is elegant and cynical: because it's a
good investment.
The merchant needs social legitimacy. The priesthood
provides it. The merchant needs social stability to conduct business. The
priesthood helps maintain it by keeping the masses focused on the afterlife
rather than on wealth inequality. The merchant needs allies in the ruling
class. The priesthood has their ear.
So the merchant pays Dakshina (ritual
donations) the way a modern corporation pays for lobbying and PR. It's not a
spiritual transaction. It's a business expense.
The priest, for his part, knows exactly what's happening.
He's not stupid. He knows the merchant doesn't really believe that the fire
sacrifice is controlling the cosmos. He doesn't particularly care. The gold
spends the same whether the donor is sincere or not.
This is the symbiosis that the orthodox tradition would
never admit and the materialist tradition would never celebrate, but both have
relied on for millennia.
The Great Erasure: How a Philosophy Was Deleted
So what happened to the Charvakas? If they were so
influential, why is their name barely known?
The answer is both simple and depressing: their enemies had
better institutional survival strategies.
The Charvakas had a fatal weakness: they didn't build
monasteries. They didn't have a renunciant order that preserved texts across
generations. They were a philosophy of the world (Loka), and when the
world changed—when cities fell, when trade routes shifted, when patronage dried
up—their libraries collapsed.
The Buddhists and Jains, by contrast, had monastic
institutions that survived for centuries, even under persecution. The orthodox
Brahminical tradition had the gurukula system and the
patronage of kings who understood that a priestly class was useful for
legitimacy. The Charvakas had... merchants who died and sons who didn't care
about philosophy.
But there was also active suppression. As the medieval
period progressed and Vedantic orthodoxy consolidated its grip, Charvaka
arguments were increasingly presented only to be refuted. The refutations
survive; the original texts don't. It's the philosophical equivalent of a trial
where the prosecution gets to quote the defendant out of context and then the
defendant's entire testimony is erased from the record.
Dr. Sheldon Pollock has called this "the epistemology
of the victors." Those who win the battle of ideas get to write the
history of philosophy. And the winners—the Advaitins, the Vishishtadvaitins,
the Buddhists (in their own way), the Jains—all had a shared interest in making
Charvaka look foolish. The one thing they agreed on was that materialism was
the enemy.
So Charvaka became a straw man. The crudest, most
indefensible version of hedonism was preserved as a cautionary tale.
"Don't be like those people," the teachers said. "They think
life is just about pleasure. They have no values. They are animals dressed in
human clothing."
And that caricature has stuck. Ask an educated Indian today
what Charvaka is, and they'll likely say something about "eat drink and be
merry." They won't know about the sophisticated epistemology. They won't
know about the emergent property theory of consciousness. They won't know about
the social contract ethics. They won't know about the connection to Kautilyan
statecraft.
They'll know the straw man. The victors' version.
The Survival: Charvaka Without the Name
But ideas don't die just because their books are burnt. They
mutate, go underground, find new hosts.
Charvaka survived—not as a named school, but as a method, an
attitude, a default setting for anyone who has to actually get things
done in the material world.
In economics: Every time you think about
incentives, you're thinking like a Charvaka. Every time you assume people
respond to prices rather than to moral exhortation, you're thinking like a
Charvaka. Every time you design a policy based on what you observe people
actually doing rather than what you wish they would do, you're thinking like a
Charvaka.
In political science: Realism in international
relations—the dominant paradigm for understanding why nations go to war and
make peace—is Charvaka in all but name. The core assumption that states pursue
their material interests, that morality is at best a constraint and at worst a
weapon, that power is the ultimate currency—that's pure Lokayata.
In medicine: The evidence-based medicine
movement, which insists on RCTs and verifiable outcomes rather than tradition
or authority, is Charvaka epistemology applied to healing. The Ayurvedic
rationalists who wanted to treat disease as material imbalance rather than
karmic punishment were Charvakas in saffron robes.
In technology: Every engineer who debugged a
system by isolating variables, every scientist who designed an experiment to
test a hypothesis, every logician who demanded a proof before accepting a
claim—they're all doing Charvaka. They may never have heard the name. They may
actively reject the label. But the method is the same.
In everyday life: The person who checks their
bank balance before committing to a purchase, who calculates whether a job
offer is worth the commute, who decides a relationship isn't working because
the costs outweigh the benefits—they're being Charvakas. They're just not
calling it that.
The philosophy that was supposedly destroyed is the
philosophy that runs the modern world. The name was erased; the logic was
absorbed.
The Unresolved Question: Can a Society Run on Pure
Charvaka?
This is where the irony gets truly thick.
Charvaka is probably correct about how the
world works, in the sense that its predictions are accurate and its assumptions
are consistent. But being correct about how the world works is not the same as
being able to sustain a society.
Because humans are not purely rational. We are not even
mostly rational. We are rationalizing, story-telling, symbol-making creatures
who need meaning as much as we need food. A society that told everyone,
honestly and directly, "there is no afterlife, morality is just a
coordination game, and the only reason not to steal is the risk of getting
caught" might not survive very long.
The evidence for this is everywhere. Even avowed
materialists get married in churches, bury their dead with rituals, and tear up
at national anthems. Even hardheaded realists tell their children fairy tales
about justice and heroism. Even the most cynical hedge fund manager has a set
of values they would not betray for any price—even if they can't logically
justify those values on materialist grounds.
Charvaka acknowledges this. The "refined"
Charvaka, remember, understood that prudence often means maintaining social
conventions even if they're technically false. The priest who doesn't believe
in gods but performs the rituals anyway because they comfort the community?
That's a Charvaka move. The politician who knows the nation is just a story but
speaks of it with reverence because the story motivates people to cooperate?
Also a Charvaka move.
The operating system can run indefinitely. But it needs a
user interface. And the user interface, by its nature, must hide the operating
system.
The Charvaka who tries to make everyone a Charvaka is the
Charvaka who destroys the conditions for their own material flourishing. They
need the Vedic interface to continue, even as they privately know it's a
simulation.
This is the deepest irony of the materialist
tradition: it depends for its success on the survival of the very
illusions it exposes.
Contemporary Echoes: Charvaka in the Age of Algorithms
Let me bring this home with some contemporary examples,
because the patterns are too striking to ignore.
The startup founder: "We're disrupting the
industry. Our data-driven approach is changing everything. We don't rely on
legacy thinking or traditional authority." Then they go to the temple
before the funding round, or consult an astrologer before the product launch,
or have their office vastu-corrected. Is this hypocrisy? Or is it the Kautilyan
synthesis—maximizing material outcomes while maintaining social legitimacy?
The nationalist politician: "Our ancient
civilization has timeless spiritual values that the West has lost." Then
they cut deals with multinational corporations, implement structural adjustment
programs, and prioritize GDP growth over ecological or social concerns. The rhetoric
is Vedic; the policy is Charvaka. The operating system runs the show; the user
interface provides the cover.
The rationalist activist: "We must
eliminate superstition and promote scientific thinking." Then they
discover that communities stripped of traditional meaning structures don't
become rational; they become anxious, atomized, and vulnerable to new superstitions—crypto
scams, conspiracy theories, wellness cults. The Charvaka project of total
disenchantment has been tried. It produces societies that are materially
efficient and spiritually desolate.
The Central Bank governor: "Our decisions
are based on data, modeling, and evidence. We don't rely on ideology."
Then they speak of "maintaining confidence in the currency" and
"anchoring inflation expectations"—concepts that have no material reality,
only intersubjective agreement. The currency is a shared fiction. The Charvaka
central banker is maintaining the Vedic altar of fiat money.
What Charvaka Teaches Us About Our Own "Invisible
Grids"
I've been avoiding that phrase, but let me land on it now.
Every society runs on two levels. There's the official
story—the one about justice, meaning, morality, and transcendence. And there's
the actual machinery—the one about incentives, force, resources, and survival.
The Charvakas were the people who looked at the machinery
and said, "This is real. The story is just a story." And they were
punished for it, not because they were wrong, but because telling people that
the story is just a story can make the machinery malfunction.
The Kautilyan synthesis—operating system Charvaka, user
interface Vedic—is the stable equilibrium. The ruler thinks like a materialist
and speaks like a priest. The merchant calculates like a rationalist and
donates like a devotee. The soldier fights for a nation they know, at some
level, is an imagined community, but they fight anyway because the imagined
community is what makes their sacrifice meaningful.
We like to think we're beyond this. We're moderns! We have
science! We have evidence-based policy! We don't need the old stories!
And yet. Watch what happens at a national funeral. Watch how
a currency crisis is narrated. Watch how a political leader establishes
legitimacy. The stories are different now—democracy, human rights, progress,
the market—but the function of the stories is exactly the
same. They are the user interface. And the operating system beneath them is
still the cold, hard logic of material interest.
Charvaka didn't die. It just changed its clothes. And then
it changed them again. And again.
The name is forgotten. The method is everywhere.
The Final Irony
The Charvakas wanted a world without invisible forces. They
wanted everything out in the open—perceivable, verifiable, material. They
wanted to strip away the illusions and see reality as it is.
But the reality they revealed was one that could not be
lived without new illusions. And the process of revealing it required a kind of
invisibility itself—the operating system hidden beneath the interface, the
realist insight that cannot be spoken too loudly without breaking the machine.
The ultimate Charvaka truth is that Charvaka cannot be the
whole truth for a functioning society. The person who sees through every
illusion is the person who can no longer participate in the collective fictions
that make human cooperation possible. They become a spectator, not a
participant. And spectators don't change the world; they just watch it burn.
So the Charvakas were right, and they were wrong, and they
were right about being wrong, and they were wrong about being right—and
somewhere in that infinite regress is the actual shape of the human condition.
The sweet-tongued ones spoke well. And we burnt their books
anyway.
And then we used their logic to run the world.
And we never even said thank you.
What the Commenters Got Right
The extended discussion that prompted this blog post—a rich
dialogue among historians, philosophers, political scientists, and
just-plain-curious readers—generated several insights worth highlighting.
Dr. A. K. Ramanujan (fictional composite, but the
sentiment is real): "The Charvaka critique of ritual economy is
essentially a labor theory of value applied to the priesthood. The priests
produce nothing material, yet extract surplus through fear. This is
exploitation disguised as transcendence."
The anonymous merchant in the comments: "You're
all overthinking this. I donate to the temple because my mother would be upset
if I didn't. I run my business the way that makes money. There's no
contradiction. The contradiction is in your heads."
The orthodox defender: "The Charvakas miss
the entire point of dharma. It's not about 'belief.' It's about practice, about
maintaining the cosmos through action. A materialist can still perform
rituals—the effect is in the performance, not in the mental state."
The political realist: "Kautilya was
smarter than all of you. He knew that the king needs the priests to control the
masses AND needs the Charvakas to advise him not to be controlled by the
priests. That's not synthesis; that's strategy."
And my personal favorite, from someone identifying as a
"refined Charvaka in recovery":
"The most dangerous moment in any society is when the
user interface starts to believe its own propaganda. That's when the operating
system crashes. The Charvakas weren't trying to destroy the interface. They
were trying to remind the programmers not to confuse the map with the
territory."
REFERENCE LIST
Acharya, A. (2014). The End of American World Order.
Polity Press.
Bilimoria, P. (2007). Indian Ethics: Classical
Traditions and Contemporary Challenges. Ashgate.
Bronkhorst, J. (2007). Greater Magadha: Studies in
the Culture of Early India. Brill.
Chattopadhyaya, D. (1959). Lokayata: A Study in
Ancient Indian Materialism. People's Publishing House.
Churchland, P. S. (2013). Touching a Nerve: The Self
as Brain. W. W. Norton.
Dasgupta, S. N. (1922). A History of Indian
Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Deshpande, M. M. (1993). Sanskrit and Prakrit:
Sociolinguistic Issues. Motilal Banarsidass.
Doniger, W. (2009). The Hindus: An Alternative
History. Penguin Press.
Ganeri, J. (2001). Philosophy in Classical India.
Routledge.
Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism.
Oxford University Press.
Gombrich, R. (1996). How Buddhism Began.
Munshiram Manoharlal.
Heitzman, J. (2004). Network City: Planning the
Information Society in Bangalore. Oxford University Press.
Jaffrelot, C. (2003). India's Silent Revolution.
Columbia University Press.
Kaviraj, S. (2010). The Trajectories of the Indian
State. Permanent Black.
Kosambi, D. D. (1956). An Introduction to the Study
of Indian History. Popular Prakashan.
Kulke, H. (1995). *The State in India, 1000-1700*.
Oxford University Press.
Matilal, B. K. (1985). Logic, Language and Reality:
Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Motilal Banarsidass.
McClish, M. (2019). The History of the Arthasastra.
Cambridge University Press.
Olivelle, P. (2013). King, Governance, and Law in
Ancient India: Kautilya's Arthasastra. Oxford University Press.
Pande, G. C. (1974). Life and Thought of
Sankaracarya. Motilal Banarsidass.
Plofker, K. (2009). Mathematics in India.
Princeton University Press.
Pollock, S. (2006). The Language of the Gods in the
World of Men. University of California Press.
Ram-Prasad, C. (2002). Advaita Epistemology and
Metaphysics. RoutledgeCurzon.
Sen, A. (2005). The Argumentative Indian. Allen
Lane.
Singh, U. (2008). A History of Ancient and Early
Medieval India. Pearson Education.
Subrahmanyam, S. (2005). Explorations in Connected
History. Oxford University Press.
Thapar, R. (1978). Ancient Indian Social History.
Orient Longman.
Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Harvard
University Press.
Witzel, M. (2001). Autochthonous Aryans? The
Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. Electronic Journal of Vedic
Studies.
Wujastyk, D. (2003). The Roots of Ayurveda.
Penguin Books
Comments
Post a Comment